What’s destabilizing B.C.’s wild salmon stocks?
- Thread starter Birdsnest
- Start date
GLG
Well-Known Member
Do your own homework.
added..... so nothing right.. here let me help you.
You said...
"Cowichan river dumps it’s smolts out in the heart of the cook fish farm area. Shouldn’t Cowichan River then be used as an example of fish farms not hurting wild salmon."
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-farm-trouble-in-bc.67598/page-42#post-855641
Last edited:
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
In our area we are suffering the same results as everywhere else that are with or without salmon farms. Individual juvenile groups that spend longer periods of time in fresh water are showing low returns. And some nets are causing problems as well.
Chums are doing ok around here but we don't have pinks. They got fished to extinction at the turn of the century.
GLG
Well-Known Member
What is the name of the best river for returns that you have in that area?
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
AA has claimed that co migrating stocks effects transfer from salmon to salmon and that fish farms don’t need to be close to the run to have an effect on the run.
Lots of stocks co migrate with Cowichan chinook. Lots of them pass fish farms as well as co migrate with Cowichan. Herring stocks pass fish farms that Cowichan stocks feed on.
So do u GLG agree with AA or disagree with him.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188690
Weight of evidence for longer-term PRV presence in BC
Siah et al. [1] cite detection of PRV in a wild Steelhead trout (O. mykiss) collected in 1977 in support of longer-term PRV presence in BC. This result is cited from Marty et al. [14], who provided no S1 segment sequence information to verify the PRV strain identity as per the sequence groupings reported by both Kibenge et al. [8] and Garseth et al. [15]. The recent discovery of the widespread occurrence of PRV-2 across the North Pacific (Takano et al. 2016[16]) raises the question: Was the 1977 steelhead infected with PRV-2 or PRV? In absence of S1 sequencing this uncertainty cannot be resolved.
Furthermore, this result could not be replicated by a second laboratory (Purcell and Thompson 2014 [17]) and therefore warrants qualification as a non-repeatable result and a suspect positive lacking sufficient robustness to provide evidence critical to the temporal presence of PRV in BC.
Sampling inadequacies
The description of the temporal and spatial distribution of the samples reported on by Siah et al. [1] is inadequate to support the conclusion that PRV is endemic to BC.
AND MANY MORE REASONS IN ARTICLE...
Conclusion
We conclude that the longer-term presence of PRV in BC prior to 2001 has not been adequately described and that the evidence that the virus was introduced from Norway is more robust than the hypothesis that PRV is endemic to the eastern Pacific Ocean.
Supporting information S1 Table. Piscine orthoreovirus segment S1 nucleotide sequences analyzed in this study.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty has undoubtedly been successful in sowing doubt on behalf of the pro-FF lobby - rather than protecting wild stocks on behalf of the general public - and the pro-FF lobby haven't critically examined his assertions - or maybe didn't want to...
Weight of evidence for longer-term PRV presence in BC
Siah et al. [1] cite detection of PRV in a wild Steelhead trout (O. mykiss) collected in 1977 in support of longer-term PRV presence in BC. This result is cited from Marty et al. [14], who provided no S1 segment sequence information to verify the PRV strain identity as per the sequence groupings reported by both Kibenge et al. [8] and Garseth et al. [15]. The recent discovery of the widespread occurrence of PRV-2 across the North Pacific (Takano et al. 2016[16]) raises the question: Was the 1977 steelhead infected with PRV-2 or PRV? In absence of S1 sequencing this uncertainty cannot be resolved.
Furthermore, this result could not be replicated by a second laboratory (Purcell and Thompson 2014 [17]) and therefore warrants qualification as a non-repeatable result and a suspect positive lacking sufficient robustness to provide evidence critical to the temporal presence of PRV in BC.
Sampling inadequacies
The description of the temporal and spatial distribution of the samples reported on by Siah et al. [1] is inadequate to support the conclusion that PRV is endemic to BC.
AND MANY MORE REASONS IN ARTICLE...
Conclusion
We conclude that the longer-term presence of PRV in BC prior to 2001 has not been adequately described and that the evidence that the virus was introduced from Norway is more robust than the hypothesis that PRV is endemic to the eastern Pacific Ocean.
Supporting information S1 Table. Piscine orthoreovirus segment S1 nucleotide sequences analyzed in this study.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty has undoubtedly been successful in sowing doubt on behalf of the pro-FF lobby - rather than protecting wild stocks on behalf of the general public - and the pro-FF lobby haven't critically examined his assertions - or maybe didn't want to...
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Well agent if anyone is an expert ant sowing doubt, its you. lol Ill leave your paper to the experts to sort out and Ill point out that this still doesn't change the results from the other most recent studies on the effects of PRV on pacific salmon species that show pretty minimal effects.
So do you have an equivalent paper on the ISA issue? Or is Millar-saunders a liar?
So do you have an equivalent paper on the ISA issue? Or is Millar-saunders a liar?
GLG
Well-Known Member
I thought it was on topic
"What’s destabilizing B.C.’s wild salmon stocks?"
Can hardly talk about destabilized wild stocks in an area with FF without talking about the stocks where you are. So I'll ask again ... what is the name of the best river where the FF that you work at?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride.
"You keep using that video. I do not think it confirms what you think it confirms." — Agentaqua, sportfishingbc.com forums
Thank you so much for posting that video, BN! It actually confirms what I have been saying. Let me explain:
Well, kristi was reporting on the samples from the dates (from 2013 onwards) and places (Fraser River and Salish Sea) they received samples from for the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative (SSHI): https://marinesurvivalproject.com/research_activity/list/disease-health/
Unless you can prove that Oweekeno Lake was magically airlifted to the Salish Sea - she isn't reporting on Oweekeno stocks - unless you have some other information. She certainly isn't reporting on the samples collected anywhere before 2013 (including the previous Molly Kibenge Cultus Lake, and Rick Routledge's Oweekeno Lake samples). She most certainly did not parrot the CFIA script that: "ISAv is not found in BC".
Because she didn't find ISAv in the places and dates where she received samples from - doesn't mean that other places and dates did not have ISAv - nice try, though. "A" for effort on this one; "F" for content and understanding, though.
It also does not mean that ISAv may or may not still be percolating away somewhere else - like Oweekeno Lake - or that previous outbreaks of ISAv didn't had a serious population-level effect on local stocks that we are still recovering from today.
Maybe ISAv even died-out before it mutated into a less virulent strain (and wouldn't that be great!) - and Kristi talks about this in that same video you posted - about highly virulent disease-causing organisms being on the reportable disease list for that reason of causing acute outbreaks with massive mortality - then dying-out since they kill off their hosts. She also talks about the difference with PRv - being more of a chronic disease - and the difficulties in using cell culture for confirmation - supporting what I said earlier; and that certain strain of PRv are indeed infective to Pacific Salmon - again supporting what I said earlier.
This all corroborates what I was saying earlier.
Last edited:
Now the authors don’t say equal per se, but it’s clear they don’t restrict themselves to the Fraser.
We found that most Fraser and many non-Fraser sockeye stocks, both in Canada and the U.S.A., show a decrease in productivity, especially over the last decade, and often also over a period of decline starting in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Thus, declines since the late 1980s have occurred over a much larger area than just the Fraser River system and are not unique to it. This observation that productivity has followed shared trends over a much larger area than just the Fraser River system is a very important new finding. More specifically, there have been relatively large, rapid, and consistent decreases in sockeye productivity since the late 1990s in many areas along the west coast of North America, including the following stocks (from south to north).(pg 2)
https://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Exh-748-Final.pdf
funny post 7 the topic gets shifted from parasites to disease......
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/files/e-mail-dsf-sea-lice-research-23may2011.pdf
More than 500 news stories have reported this sea lice research. The lead researcher was Dr. Martin Krkosek, a graduate student of Dr. Mark Lewis.
The biggest problem with alarm over sea lice is that it is completely at odds with the excellent returns of wild salmon in recent years. In 2000, despite 13 years of salmon farming, the return of wild pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago was the highest on record since the 1950s. The Broughton lies between the north tip of Vancouver Island and the mainland and is ground zero in B.C.'s salmon farming controversy.
In the Broughton, the largest pink salmon producing watershed is Glendale Creek. In 2004, pink salmon returns to the Glendale were the third highest on record. In predicting extinction due to sea lice, the CMB excluded Glendale data.
In 2009, in the very same area where extinction due to sea lice was predicted, wild pink salmon returns were so good that commercial fishing took place. DSF didn't say boo. Instead, DSF and other environmental groups shifted their focus to low returns of Fraser sockeye. So much fuss was raised that Prime Minister Stephen Harper established a public inquiry, The Cohen Commission, costing $15 million. The following year, 30 million Fraser sockeye showed up. That historic return was the best in nearly 100 years.
The David Suzuki Foundation has described its sea lice research as undeniable, compelling, irrefutable and proof. “These (sea lice) data, due to the massive sampling effort and the unequivocal nature of the conclusions, satisfy even the most conservative benchmark for proof,” says the David Suzuki Foundation. The fact is, that study was done over 14 days. That's hardly a massive effort. According to the company that operates the salmon farm under study, harvesting was in process so during the last part of the data collection, there were apparently no fish at the farm.
The David Suzuki Foundation reports, "up to 95 percent of wild juvenile pink and *** salmon are dying from sea lice” but mortality in the wild was never measured and reported. Never. Hypothetical, mortality estimates were computer-generated in Edmonton. The CMB's published mortality prediction was "9 - 95 percent." The David Suzuki Foundation selectively publicized the CMB's prediction of up to 95 mortality but not the fact that it could be as low as 9 percent.
According to Dr. Richard Beamish, a federal government scientist and member of the Order of Canada, the survival rate of juvenile wild salmon in the Broughton in 2002 was an unprecedented high of 34 percent. If 34 percent survived, it is mathematically impossible that “up to 95 percent” were killed by sea lice, as the David Suzuki Foundation has claimed.
Studies from the 1960s — when there were no salmon farms — found that between 59 and 77 percent of juvenile salmon die within the first 40 days of life. And yet, the David Suzuki Foundation claims that sea lice from salmon farms "frequently kill over 80 percent." Again, the numbers don’t ring true.
Sea lice are found on many species of wild fish, including herring. A method to trace the origin of sea lice is under development but currently does not exist so its methodologically impossible to distinguish between sea lice that originate from a fish farm and those that come from other wild fish. It follows that the David Suzuki Foundation's many claims about “farm-origin” sea lice, are flagrantly unsubstantiated (read: bogus).
In science, unsubstantiated claims lack integrity. Getting such claims published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal does not change that. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) states that any action that is inconsistent with integrity is regarded as misconduct.
As for the David Suzuki Foundation, it web-site says, "We do not assume responsibility for omissions and inaccuracy of our materials."
In stark contrast to the David Suzuki Foundation and the CMB, other scientists believe that wild salmon
populations are actually increasing. Dr. Kenneth Brooks and Dr. Simon Jones concluded, "When all of the
Broughton's watersheds are considered, pink salmon stocks are seen to have steadily increased over the last five
years with no indication that they are headed for extinction." Brooks is an aquaculture consultant while Jones is a
DFO scientist. Twenty scientists endorsed their view but unlike the alarming claims coming from the David Suzuki
Foundation, this reasoned conclusion from 20 international scientists didn't make the news.
Back in 2007, thanks to Google, I unexpectedly found a University of Alberta document in which the CMB
reported that it had a "research partnership" with SeaWeb, an American organization based in Maryland. This was
not mentioned in scientific publications nor in press releases.
Since 2000, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (“Packard”), based in California, has funded SeaWeb as
part of its Marine Fisheries program. This program has a focus on “the U.S. arctic” which presumably is Alaska.
U.S. tax returns show that Packard has paid SeaWeb $23 million since 2000. That included $9 million for Seafood
Choices and $6 million for COMPASS which publicized the CMB's sea lice research in 2005 and again in 2007.
Seafood Choices is a marketing strategy with three components: 1) Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC) Certification, 2) Large U.S. Buyers, and 3) “Context
Setting.” In 2006, under pressure from Packard-funded organizations, Wal-mart
committed to sourcing MSC-certified fisheries of which Alaska accounted for 95
percent of the volume.
Since 2003 and all the bad press over farmed salmon, consumers and
restaurants have switched to “wild” salmon, most of which is Alaskan. The exvessel
value of Alaskan “wild” salmon has more than tripled from $125 million
in 2002 to $409 million in 2008.
At the same time that SeaWeb was paid to co-ordinate Seafood Choices, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
(“Moore”) paid SeaWeb to co-ordinate an “antifarming campaign” with “science messages” and “earned media.”
The purpose of this campaign was "... to shift consumer and retailer demand away from farmed salmon,” U.S. tax
returns say. When concerns were raised about this grant, it was quietly re-written along with three other grants for
a total of $3.6 million.
In 2007, sea lice research was published in the journal SCIENCE. At the time,
the editor-in-chief was Dr Donald Kennedy, a trustee of the Packard foundation.
Since 2000, Packard has spent$88 million on its Market Intervention
strategy that sways consumers and retailers towards wild fish and away from the
competing product: imported farmed fish, especially farmed salmon. That
included $2.7 specifically for two campaigns (Farmed and Dangerous and Pure
Salmon) which did media relations for the CMB's sea lice researchers.
Sea lice research has also been reported in Conservation Biology, a
journal created by the Packard foundation, and PLoS (Ford et al., 2008 and
Price et al., 2010), a journal created with $ 9 million from Moore.
Over the years, Packard has paid $546,863 to Fenton Communications, a P.R.
company. "To move an industry, target one company" and “make your case with
hard science” advises Fenton. Indeed, that's exactly what the "antifarming campaign" has done.
The alleged danger of “farm-origin” sea lice is the basis of “Ingredient for Extinction,” the tag-line of Smarten Up
Safeway, a campaign that sent more than 30,000 faxes telling the CEO of Safeway to stop selling farmed salmon.
Safeway's real motto is "Ingredients for Life."
The day before the CMB's sea lice research was published in SCIENCE, SeaWeb sent out an e-mail saying that it
had worked with the CMB on media outreach. Within two weeks, 250 news stories reported the sea lice research.
Two thirds of the stories ran before the study was officially published. Ahem.
Media-ready photographs of sea lice have become the mushroom cloud of salmon farming. Two of the CMB's sea
lice researchers, John Volpe and Alexandra Morton, are profiled at SeaWeb's web-site as photographers.
The CMB has reported that its sea lice research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation and other sources. What the CMB and DSF didn't mention is
that funds granted through DSF were also from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation. Was the David Suzuki
Foundation's sea lice research and its media coverage part and parcel of the "science messages" and the "earned
media" of a multi-million dollar, American marketing campaign? That's a fair question.
In a recent op-ed in the Vancouver Sun, the David Suzuki Foundation seems to soften its stance. "Salmon
farming has long been a controversial issue, especially in British Columbia. But is the tide starting to turn? We
think it is," says the foundation. That's good but not good enough.
David Suzuki should publicly clarify that contrary to his foundation's claims that were broadcast far and wide,
the sea lice research funded and publicized by the David Suzuki Foundation does not show and has never shown
that sea lice originating from salmon farms cause high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild.
populations are actually increasing. Dr. Kenneth Brooks and Dr. Simon Jones concluded, "When all of the
Broughton's watersheds are considered, pink salmon stocks are seen to have steadily increased over the last five
years with no indication that they are headed for extinction." Brooks is an aquaculture consultant while Jones is a
DFO scientist. Twenty scientists endorsed their view but unlike the alarming claims coming from the David Suzuki
Foundation, this reasoned conclusion from 20 international scientists didn't make the news.
Back in 2007, thanks to Google, I unexpectedly found a University of Alberta document in which the CMB
reported that it had a "research partnership" with SeaWeb, an American organization based in Maryland. This was
not mentioned in scientific publications nor in press releases.
Since 2000, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (“Packard”), based in California, has funded SeaWeb as
part of its Marine Fisheries program. This program has a focus on “the U.S. arctic” which presumably is Alaska.
U.S. tax returns show that Packard has paid SeaWeb $23 million since 2000. That included $9 million for Seafood
Choices and $6 million for COMPASS which publicized the CMB's sea lice research in 2005 and again in 2007.
Seafood Choices is a marketing strategy with three components: 1) Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC) Certification, 2) Large U.S. Buyers, and 3) “Context
Setting.” In 2006, under pressure from Packard-funded organizations, Wal-mart
committed to sourcing MSC-certified fisheries of which Alaska accounted for 95
percent of the volume.
Since 2003 and all the bad press over farmed salmon, consumers and
restaurants have switched to “wild” salmon, most of which is Alaskan. The exvessel
value of Alaskan “wild” salmon has more than tripled from $125 million
in 2002 to $409 million in 2008.
At the same time that SeaWeb was paid to co-ordinate Seafood Choices, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
(“Moore”) paid SeaWeb to co-ordinate an “antifarming campaign” with “science messages” and “earned media.”
The purpose of this campaign was "... to shift consumer and retailer demand away from farmed salmon,” U.S. tax
returns say. When concerns were raised about this grant, it was quietly re-written along with three other grants for
a total of $3.6 million.
In 2007, sea lice research was published in the journal SCIENCE. At the time,
the editor-in-chief was Dr Donald Kennedy, a trustee of the Packard foundation.
Since 2000, Packard has spent$88 million on its Market Intervention
strategy that sways consumers and retailers towards wild fish and away from the
competing product: imported farmed fish, especially farmed salmon. That
included $2.7 specifically for two campaigns (Farmed and Dangerous and Pure
Salmon) which did media relations for the CMB's sea lice researchers.
Sea lice research has also been reported in Conservation Biology, a
journal created by the Packard foundation, and PLoS (Ford et al., 2008 and
Price et al., 2010), a journal created with $ 9 million from Moore.
Over the years, Packard has paid $546,863 to Fenton Communications, a P.R.
company. "To move an industry, target one company" and “make your case with
hard science” advises Fenton. Indeed, that's exactly what the "antifarming campaign" has done.
The alleged danger of “farm-origin” sea lice is the basis of “Ingredient for Extinction,” the tag-line of Smarten Up
Safeway, a campaign that sent more than 30,000 faxes telling the CEO of Safeway to stop selling farmed salmon.
Safeway's real motto is "Ingredients for Life."
The day before the CMB's sea lice research was published in SCIENCE, SeaWeb sent out an e-mail saying that it
had worked with the CMB on media outreach. Within two weeks, 250 news stories reported the sea lice research.
Two thirds of the stories ran before the study was officially published. Ahem.
Media-ready photographs of sea lice have become the mushroom cloud of salmon farming. Two of the CMB's sea
lice researchers, John Volpe and Alexandra Morton, are profiled at SeaWeb's web-site as photographers.
The CMB has reported that its sea lice research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation and other sources. What the CMB and DSF didn't mention is
that funds granted through DSF were also from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation. Was the David Suzuki
Foundation's sea lice research and its media coverage part and parcel of the "science messages" and the "earned
media" of a multi-million dollar, American marketing campaign? That's a fair question.
In a recent op-ed in the Vancouver Sun, the David Suzuki Foundation seems to soften its stance. "Salmon
farming has long been a controversial issue, especially in British Columbia. But is the tide starting to turn? We
think it is," says the foundation. That's good but not good enough.
David Suzuki should publicly clarify that contrary to his foundation's claims that were broadcast far and wide,
the sea lice research funded and publicized by the David Suzuki Foundation does not show and has never shown
that sea lice originating from salmon farms cause high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild.
Letter to the Editor, North Island Gazette, Published: February 09, 2010
The David Suzuki Foundation has a hefty influence on public opinion so its fair to inquire about their funding and reporting of scientific research.
My calculations show that, since 2000, the David Suzuki Foundation has had revenues of $61.3 million. What is the origin of $27.4 million reported as income from other charities and sources? How much came from American foundations for promotion of certified fish, mostly Alaskan?
Where did the Foundation get $1.9 million it granted to First Nations from 2000 to 2002, most of which are not favourable to salmon farming? Where did you get funds for the brochure, Why You Shouldn’t Eat Farmed Salmon?
Why did you falsely report B.C. farmed salmon is heavily contaminated with PCBs and other toxins? This claim is based on a study of just four farmed salmon. Studies - including your own - show farmed salmon has less than three percent of what Health Canada considers the tolerable level for PCBs in fish.
Why did you falsely report that your research shows sea lice originate from salmon farms and cause high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild?
To the best of my knowledge, sea lice levels at salmon farms were never measured in your research. Sea lice are found on many species of wild fish, and there’s no way to tell whether they originated from salmon farms or wild fish. It follows that your claims, that research shows that sea lice originating from salmon farms cause high levels of juvenile salmon mortality in the wild and put them at risk of extinction, are false.
In the wake of extensive bad press - generated largely by the David Suzuki Foundation - a “war on fish farmers” was declared. More than 20,000 people have signed Alexandra Morton’s petition to close salmon farms and millions of tax dollars have been spent on sea lice instead of other priorities.
Has the David Suzuki Foundation deliberately manufactured controversy as part of an anti-farming campaign for certified fish? Have you swayed consumers away from farmed salmon because this serves the purposes of your American funders?
Considering the Foundation got funding for sea lice research from the American foundation that funded an “anti-farming campaign,” and that your sea lice researchers had a “research partnership” with the organization that co-ordinated the “anti-farming campaign.”
I find it hard to believe the bad press The David Suzuki Foundation generated about sea lice is not part of this marketing campaign.
In the interest of fairness, please tell the whole truth about your funding sources and your actual findings with regards to research on PCBs in farmed salmon.
Vivian Krause
North Vancouver
The David Suzuki Foundation has a hefty influence on public opinion so its fair to inquire about their funding and reporting of scientific research.
My calculations show that, since 2000, the David Suzuki Foundation has had revenues of $61.3 million. What is the origin of $27.4 million reported as income from other charities and sources? How much came from American foundations for promotion of certified fish, mostly Alaskan?
Where did the Foundation get $1.9 million it granted to First Nations from 2000 to 2002, most of which are not favourable to salmon farming? Where did you get funds for the brochure, Why You Shouldn’t Eat Farmed Salmon?
Why did you falsely report B.C. farmed salmon is heavily contaminated with PCBs and other toxins? This claim is based on a study of just four farmed salmon. Studies - including your own - show farmed salmon has less than three percent of what Health Canada considers the tolerable level for PCBs in fish.
Why did you falsely report that your research shows sea lice originate from salmon farms and cause high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild?
To the best of my knowledge, sea lice levels at salmon farms were never measured in your research. Sea lice are found on many species of wild fish, and there’s no way to tell whether they originated from salmon farms or wild fish. It follows that your claims, that research shows that sea lice originating from salmon farms cause high levels of juvenile salmon mortality in the wild and put them at risk of extinction, are false.
In the wake of extensive bad press - generated largely by the David Suzuki Foundation - a “war on fish farmers” was declared. More than 20,000 people have signed Alexandra Morton’s petition to close salmon farms and millions of tax dollars have been spent on sea lice instead of other priorities.
Has the David Suzuki Foundation deliberately manufactured controversy as part of an anti-farming campaign for certified fish? Have you swayed consumers away from farmed salmon because this serves the purposes of your American funders?
Considering the Foundation got funding for sea lice research from the American foundation that funded an “anti-farming campaign,” and that your sea lice researchers had a “research partnership” with the organization that co-ordinated the “anti-farming campaign.”
I find it hard to believe the bad press The David Suzuki Foundation generated about sea lice is not part of this marketing campaign.
In the interest of fairness, please tell the whole truth about your funding sources and your actual findings with regards to research on PCBs in farmed salmon.
Vivian Krause
North Vancouver
resorting to quoting Vivian does not help your credibility problem, bones - IMHO.
https://www.desmog.ca/vivian-krause
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Vivian_Krause
https://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2016/10/opinion-time-energy-industry-ignore-vivian-krause/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/desmog-canada/vivian-krause_b_6162274.html
https://www.desmog.ca/vivian-krause
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Vivian_Krause
https://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2016/10/opinion-time-energy-industry-ignore-vivian-krause/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/desmog-canada/vivian-krause_b_6162274.html
who looking for help?
just doing what you do, flooding the site with papers. would you like more?
B.C.'s fishy salmon science
Last updated Thursday, Sep. 06, 2012 4:00PM EDT
In B.C., there's something almost sacred about salmon. So when the salmon runs started to dwindle, the blame game began in earnest. The disastrous decline in salmon stocks has been blamed on everything from misguided first nations' fishing policy to global warming, pollution and habitat loss - to say nothing of mismanagement by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. But the biggest villain is fish farms. Many people believe the fish farms are responsible for spreading deadly sea lice and disease to wild fish. Three years ago, activists warned that B.C.'s population of pink salmon would be virtually wiped out if the infestations continued.
Now, to everyone's astonishment, the fish are practically leaping into the boats. It's the biggest sockeye run in a century. The pink salmon are also back in droves. In Atlantic Canada and Quebec, too, salmon returns are setting records. So much for sea lice.
"I think it's sad," says fish researcher Vivian Krause. "We've spent close to $15-million on sea lice research and now the Cohen commission, which was largely forced into existence by sea lice fears."
The commission, headed by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Cohen, was set up to examine the scientific questions raised by the collapse of the salmon stocks. At last week's hearing in Campbell River, environmentalists and tourism operators showed up to blast the fish farms yet again - even as the Fraser River fishery ran out of ice. "It's kind of ironic that we sit here and talk about the declining Fraser stocks when there's a record run," said Darren Blaney of the Homalco First Nation.
Thanks to Greenpeace, the David Suzuki Foundation and other activists, fish farms are among the most loathed operations in British Columbia. At first, environmentalists said farmed salmon contained dangerous levels of cancer-causing PCBs and shouldn't be consumed by pregnant women - until it turned out that wild salmon (declared safe by Health Canada) has even higher levels of PCBs. Then they warned that escaped salmon would interbreed with wild salmon and produce Frankenfish. The scare that finally stuck was sea lice (even though there's no good evidence that sea lice are a problem). Yuck!
The best-known fish-farm fighter is Alexandra Morton, a media darling who's become a folk hero for her tireless (and effective) crusade. Few people are aware that Ms. Morton and other environmental groups have received tens of millions in funding from huge U.S. charitable trusts, including the Moore and Packard foundations, as well as lesser sums from local commercial fishing companies. Packard also spent millions on campaigns to persuade Wal-Mart and Safeway to carry Alaska wild salmon instead of farmed B.C. salmon. Not coincidentally, Alaska has also been busy demonizing fish farms, because its wild salmon competes with B.C.'s farmed salmon for market share.
"The environmental movement has enhanced its credibility by arguing for positions that serve American interests," observes Ms. Krause (who doesn't get funding from anyone). Ms. Morton now says she's stopped accepting money from the Americans.
Aquaculture, which involves raising fish in close quarters in open-net pens in the ocean, is a relatively new industry. It's had its share of growing pains, and is by no means problem-free. Still, it brings considerable economic benefits to British Columbia, as well as local sustainable jobs to first nations up and down the coast. But many in the industry have put their expansion plans on hold because of the mounting pile of regulations and dreadful PR.
Yet, even if the salmon return again next year, and the year after that, aquaculture is the future. As the world's population soars, global food needs are soaring, too. Our oceans are shockingly fished out (a far more urgent problem than global warming). Like it or not, farmed fish will soon be vital to feed a hungry world. We should be pouring money into improving the industry, not fighting it. Too bad popular hysteria, whipped up by phony fears, is getting in the way.
just doing what you do, flooding the site with papers. would you like more?
B.C.'s fishy salmon science
Last updated Thursday, Sep. 06, 2012 4:00PM EDT
In B.C., there's something almost sacred about salmon. So when the salmon runs started to dwindle, the blame game began in earnest. The disastrous decline in salmon stocks has been blamed on everything from misguided first nations' fishing policy to global warming, pollution and habitat loss - to say nothing of mismanagement by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. But the biggest villain is fish farms. Many people believe the fish farms are responsible for spreading deadly sea lice and disease to wild fish. Three years ago, activists warned that B.C.'s population of pink salmon would be virtually wiped out if the infestations continued.
Now, to everyone's astonishment, the fish are practically leaping into the boats. It's the biggest sockeye run in a century. The pink salmon are also back in droves. In Atlantic Canada and Quebec, too, salmon returns are setting records. So much for sea lice.
"I think it's sad," says fish researcher Vivian Krause. "We've spent close to $15-million on sea lice research and now the Cohen commission, which was largely forced into existence by sea lice fears."
The commission, headed by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Cohen, was set up to examine the scientific questions raised by the collapse of the salmon stocks. At last week's hearing in Campbell River, environmentalists and tourism operators showed up to blast the fish farms yet again - even as the Fraser River fishery ran out of ice. "It's kind of ironic that we sit here and talk about the declining Fraser stocks when there's a record run," said Darren Blaney of the Homalco First Nation.
Thanks to Greenpeace, the David Suzuki Foundation and other activists, fish farms are among the most loathed operations in British Columbia. At first, environmentalists said farmed salmon contained dangerous levels of cancer-causing PCBs and shouldn't be consumed by pregnant women - until it turned out that wild salmon (declared safe by Health Canada) has even higher levels of PCBs. Then they warned that escaped salmon would interbreed with wild salmon and produce Frankenfish. The scare that finally stuck was sea lice (even though there's no good evidence that sea lice are a problem). Yuck!
The best-known fish-farm fighter is Alexandra Morton, a media darling who's become a folk hero for her tireless (and effective) crusade. Few people are aware that Ms. Morton and other environmental groups have received tens of millions in funding from huge U.S. charitable trusts, including the Moore and Packard foundations, as well as lesser sums from local commercial fishing companies. Packard also spent millions on campaigns to persuade Wal-Mart and Safeway to carry Alaska wild salmon instead of farmed B.C. salmon. Not coincidentally, Alaska has also been busy demonizing fish farms, because its wild salmon competes with B.C.'s farmed salmon for market share.
"The environmental movement has enhanced its credibility by arguing for positions that serve American interests," observes Ms. Krause (who doesn't get funding from anyone). Ms. Morton now says she's stopped accepting money from the Americans.
Aquaculture, which involves raising fish in close quarters in open-net pens in the ocean, is a relatively new industry. It's had its share of growing pains, and is by no means problem-free. Still, it brings considerable economic benefits to British Columbia, as well as local sustainable jobs to first nations up and down the coast. But many in the industry have put their expansion plans on hold because of the mounting pile of regulations and dreadful PR.
Yet, even if the salmon return again next year, and the year after that, aquaculture is the future. As the world's population soars, global food needs are soaring, too. Our oceans are shockingly fished out (a far more urgent problem than global warming). Like it or not, farmed fish will soon be vital to feed a hungry world. We should be pouring money into improving the industry, not fighting it. Too bad popular hysteria, whipped up by phony fears, is getting in the way.
Morton Flip-Flop
by admin on June 13, 2012
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate release:
Anti-fish farm activist Alexandra Morton caught in flip-flop, credibility in question, says Greenpeace co-founder
October 25, 2006, Vancouver – Anti-fish farm activist Alexandra Morton has been caught in a flip-flop that has seriously undermined her credibility and makes her attacks on salmon farming all the more questionable, said Dr. Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder and Chairman and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.
“In 2003, before it became clear that salmon returns in the Broughton Archipelago were recovering, Ms. Morton publicly stated that young pink salmon were being infected by sea lice from salmon farms, in spite of the fact farms in the area had been fallowed. Now, with data confirming pink salmon returns in the Broughton are on the rise, Morton claims it’s a direct result of the farms having been fallowed,” Moore said.
“Her current position, which totally contradicts her earlier statement — and was conveniently developed after salmon returns in the Broughton were shown to be rising in 2004 — is that the fallowing of farms in 2003 created a safe corridor that allowed young pinks to pass by unharmed by sea lice,” said Moore.
“The allegation that salmon farms are infecting wild salmon with sea lice is central to the anti-fish farm argument. Ms. Morton’s flip-flop goes straight to the credibility of that argument and to the credibility of her research,” said Moore. “Which is it, Ms. Morton?”
In a March 3, 2003 news release from Morton’s Raincoast Research and the Living Oceans Society, Morton is quoted as saying, “My initial research shows that young pink salmon are infected with lethal numbers of sea lice in the area now designated as ‘safe’ . . . As long as there are fish farms here, there is no safe place in the Broughton Archipelago for wild salmon. I tried to warn them of this, but they would not listen, adopting a farm-friendly plan instead.”
“Ms. Morton repeats this claim throughout 2003 in numerous media stories. The problem is the data show she’s just plain wrong. When she’s forced to recognize that pink 2004 returns are rising in the area, she apparently realizes her argument no longer holds water and does a complete turn-around,” said Moore.
Morton now claims on her website that because a corridor in the Broughton was fallowed of salmon farms, the “affect was inescapable” and “lice disappeared in the spring of 2003.”
“Ms. Morton has criticized Order of Canada recipient Dr. Dick Beamish for a recent peer reviewed study that demonstrated convincingly that salmon farms were having no negative impact on wild fish, suggesting Dr. Beamish discounted the impact of the fallowing,” Moore said.
“In criticizing Dr. Beamish, Ms. Morton appears to have forgotten that she herself discounted the fallowing in 2003,” said Moore.
“When recovering salmon returns disprove Ms. Morton’s theory, she simply changes her argument so that she can continue to attack sustainable salmon farming, irrespective of what the numbers say,” said Moore.
by admin on June 13, 2012
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate release:
Anti-fish farm activist Alexandra Morton caught in flip-flop, credibility in question, says Greenpeace co-founder
October 25, 2006, Vancouver – Anti-fish farm activist Alexandra Morton has been caught in a flip-flop that has seriously undermined her credibility and makes her attacks on salmon farming all the more questionable, said Dr. Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder and Chairman and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.
“In 2003, before it became clear that salmon returns in the Broughton Archipelago were recovering, Ms. Morton publicly stated that young pink salmon were being infected by sea lice from salmon farms, in spite of the fact farms in the area had been fallowed. Now, with data confirming pink salmon returns in the Broughton are on the rise, Morton claims it’s a direct result of the farms having been fallowed,” Moore said.
“Her current position, which totally contradicts her earlier statement — and was conveniently developed after salmon returns in the Broughton were shown to be rising in 2004 — is that the fallowing of farms in 2003 created a safe corridor that allowed young pinks to pass by unharmed by sea lice,” said Moore.
“The allegation that salmon farms are infecting wild salmon with sea lice is central to the anti-fish farm argument. Ms. Morton’s flip-flop goes straight to the credibility of that argument and to the credibility of her research,” said Moore. “Which is it, Ms. Morton?”
In a March 3, 2003 news release from Morton’s Raincoast Research and the Living Oceans Society, Morton is quoted as saying, “My initial research shows that young pink salmon are infected with lethal numbers of sea lice in the area now designated as ‘safe’ . . . As long as there are fish farms here, there is no safe place in the Broughton Archipelago for wild salmon. I tried to warn them of this, but they would not listen, adopting a farm-friendly plan instead.”
“Ms. Morton repeats this claim throughout 2003 in numerous media stories. The problem is the data show she’s just plain wrong. When she’s forced to recognize that pink 2004 returns are rising in the area, she apparently realizes her argument no longer holds water and does a complete turn-around,” said Moore.
Morton now claims on her website that because a corridor in the Broughton was fallowed of salmon farms, the “affect was inescapable” and “lice disappeared in the spring of 2003.”
“Ms. Morton has criticized Order of Canada recipient Dr. Dick Beamish for a recent peer reviewed study that demonstrated convincingly that salmon farms were having no negative impact on wild fish, suggesting Dr. Beamish discounted the impact of the fallowing,” Moore said.
“In criticizing Dr. Beamish, Ms. Morton appears to have forgotten that she herself discounted the fallowing in 2003,” said Moore.
“When recovering salmon returns disprove Ms. Morton’s theory, she simply changes her argument so that she can continue to attack sustainable salmon farming, irrespective of what the numbers say,” said Moore.
Similar threads
